Ghostly Hand In Photo

Hello, I was very reluctant to post this photo. I am a photographer, and shot a wedding in May 2013... this was a photo I originally discarded as a bad photo (Because of the lighting). I was wrapping the session up, and as I always do I check my discarded photo's to make sure I didnt miss anything.

This is what I found.


EXIF: ISO 100
F/6.3
SS: 1/160

I guess I should also mention there was no editing done to these besides the crop. The RAW file will show that.

reply to post by Britx


Well looking beyond the 'hand' this child looks ill and very sad ... quite a disturbing picture to me.

Just a thought did you have permission from the couple to make this image of their children public ?

Woody

reply to post by Britx


It appears the child is looking at "it" in the cropped photo - I agree with the previous poster - she seems sad & tired which is not really normal for a child of her age (unless of course, it's just in the moment because she got scolded by her parents or got in trouble earlier...it's hard to tell with little kids)

Originally posted by coldkidc
reply to post by Britx

 

It appears the child is looking at "it" in the cropped photo - I agree with the previous poster - she seems sad & tired which is not really normal for a child of her age (unless of course, it's just in the moment because she got scolded by her parents or got in trouble earlier...it's hard to tell with little kids)

Or she might be ill, I was the flower girl in my aunts wedding and had strep throat. Those pictures are pitiful.

OP, it's a beautiful picture. Perhaps you can block out the faces of the others so the child isn't readily identifiable?

I think she can see it. It looks like the hand is affectionately stroking her face

reply to post by Britx


I looked at the photos. I can't help but notice that, with her elbow positioned as it is, if mom brings her hand right up to the child's face, it would be in the same position as that 'ghost hand'.

I think that it is the blur of mom's hand, captured accidentally.

Thanks for posting this.

I looked at the RAW file (I shoot a Nikon D7100 and use a D7000 as a backup). A couple of things. You composed them in the shadow of a tree, it's bright outside, you shot in auto mode (I don't get that, usually experienced photographers shoot manual, aperture or shutter priority), the flash went off and a return light was detected, a patterned metering mode and at 18mm. Also the child is in a transition area for lighting. So from the exif data I would say you are not a pro and I believe this may have happened.

The lens is set to wide at 18mm and the sensor is trying to get everything just right with 39 focus points. The flash is strong because it is trying to overcome the sunlight to fill in the dark areas. This light reflected back to the camera from sash from mom's dress creating (no pun intended) a ghosting on the optics of the zoom lens (multiple lenses in there). If you look close, the sash is almost identical to the ghosting, the folds are fingers.

That's what I think.

By the way, I do paranormal investigations and shoot photography as well. Occam's razor comes in to play. If there isn't more than one set of data (and I have gotten multiple data points) it may not be paranormal.

With all that said, maybe it is a ghost. Because at the end of the day, this doesn't really prove anything.

I applaud you for uploading a RAW file. No one does that except for those who really are saying "what the heck is that!".

Thanks

reply to post by Bybyots


No, I thought the same. He's shooting to fast. She couldn't move fast enough to do that. Also her body position isn't right. She would have to twist. The bottom child is looking to the left and the held child is looking to the right, so that makes me feel that a) they were there a long time to get photo's and are bored (that fits with my original hypothesis) or b) it was a fast imprompto photo with things moving around which would explain his comment of not being able to document it.

I am wondering if the bride was wearing a silver cross with a Christ's hand on it or charm of some sort on her necklace. Looks like some reflected and diffused sunlight is bothering that child.

Originally posted by woodwytch
reply to post by Britx

 

Well looking beyond the 'hand' this child looks ill and very sad ... quite a disturbing picture to me.

Just a thought did you have permission from the couple to make this image of their children public ?

Woody

Yes! Thank you for asking, I do have permission.

reply to post by ArcAngel



Thank you (:

Yes, I was shooting in Auto for this photo. I Shoot with a D800. This wasn't posed by me at all, the family was standing there for a "Friends" photo... (Aka Uncle Bob with a nice camera).

As I was fixing settings for my 2nd shooter, who mind you obviously had no Idea what they were doing (entirely different story). She had the camera on auto and I didn't look at the settings before shooting with the camera while she was changing my batteries.

I was testing her settings, without looking mind you thinking she was shooting manual to see what needed to be adjusted before removing Uncle Bob from the equation.


ETA; As originally posted, this was a discarded photo. I would never in my life provide this to a client (:

Also:

The child wasn't very happy, She didn't smile all day till she got on the dance floor that night!

reply to post by evc1shop


She was wearing a silver heart necklace.

reply to post by Britx
It is possible then that if the light came in from about 10:00 (referenced to the bride's back at 6:00) with the sun at about 65 degrees of an angle, (like 11AM or possibly around 1:30PM) and it hit the heart, you might get a reflection/shine off of the right-hand side of the heart and the curls you see as fingers would have been formed by the multiple curved "mirror-image" reflections of the polished surface as the heart pendant was still swinging in motion while the photo was shot.

ETA: I bet the curl of the fingers is a pretty close representation of the outline from her pendant.
That's my best educated theory.

reply to post by ArcAngel


I agree 100% this is the flash/camera setup reflecting the sash. you beat me to it.
Though you worded your post far better than i would of been able to as i'm no camera expert.
Nothing to worry about OP if you are worried that is.

Sorry OP and the other posters, the girl IS NOT looking at it as it is directly between the lens and the girl, the girl however is looking to the right of the object, ( to the left from our perspective) and therefore not looking at the object.
The object however looks like a butterfly flitting past the lens, you can see the wings and the body or failing a butterfly some other insect seeing as the OP said it was a high speed shutter?
Sorry no hand ghost or otherwise in this photo.

reply to post by Britx


Just a thought, but notice all the white petals on the ground fallen from the trees? I'd hazard a guess that you happened to just snap the picture as one fell close to the a camera. It's white and looks like the same kind of shape as the other petals on the ground.

The hand on her face looks pretty small, or is that just me? Almost like a child's hand, or a person with a small frame. Before even viewing the second picture, the child looked ill from a distance, sad, drained. She almost looked like a ghost all on her own. I couldn't imagine her looking like that if this was a "good" or familiar friendly entity. If it was the woman's mother, this child must not have known her.

A leaf that fell from the tree.

ALSO OP: 1/160 is not really a "very fast" shutter speed, or did you forget a 0?